We compared antibiotic prescribing rates for respiratory conditions in a national sample of outpatient visits from 2010 to 2018 between physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs). APCs prescribed antibiotics more frequently than physicians (58% vs 52%), but there were no differences in selection of guideline recommended first-line agents between specialties.

Healthcare disparities and inequities exist in a variety of environments and manifest in diagnostic and therapeutic measures. In this commentary, we highlight our experience examining our organization’s urgent care respiratory encounter antibiotic prescribing practices. We identified differences in prescribing based on several individual characteristics including patient age, race, ethnicity, preferred language, and patient and/or clinician gender. Our approach can serve as an electronic health record (EHR)–based methodology for disparity and inequity audits in other systems and for other conditions.

Pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) improve antibiotic use for hospitalized children. Prescriber surveys indicate acceptance of ASPs, but data on infectious diseases (ID) physician opinions of ASPs are lacking. We conducted a survey of pediatric ID physicians, ASP and non-ASP, and their perceptions of ASP practices and outcomes.

Background: Pharyngitis is 1 of the most common conditions leading to inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions. When personal protective equipment (PPE) was at first constrained during the COVID-19 pandemic, Intermountain Healthcare recommended limiting rapid group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) testing in urgent-care clinics to preserve PPE. Notably, the percentage of pharyngitis encounters prescribed an antibiotic and that underwent GAS testing is a key Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measure. We have described our experience with urgent-care pharyngitis encounters and the impact of temporarily reducing GAS testing on antibiotic prescribing before and during the COVID19 pandemic. Method: We identified all urgent care encounters between July 2018 and August 2021 associated with a primary diagnosis of pharyngitis using ICD-10 CM codes and a validated methodology. Pharyngitis encounters were assessed for antibiotic prescriptions ordered through the electronic health record (EHR) and the use of point-of-care rapid GAS tests. Pharyngitis encounters were analyzed monthly. We assessed the percentage of encounters associated with an antibiotic prescription regardless of testing and the percentage of encounters associated with an antibiotic prescription when a GAS test was or was not performed. We examined 3 periods relating to COVID-19 and GAS testing recommendations: the prepandemic period (July 2018–March 2020), the pandemic onset period (April 2020–June 2020), and the pandemic period (July 2020–August 2021). Results: Prior to the pandemic, the monthly percentage of pharyngitis encounters for which rapid GAS testing was performed was nearly 90% (Fig. 1). The average monthly percentage of urgent-care pharyngitis encounters prescribed an antibiotic was 38.9%, and the average percentage of monthly pharyngitis encounters prescribed an antibiotic that also underwent GAS testing was 90.4%. This HEDIS measure declined from 90.4% during the prepandemic period to 29.8% in the pandemic onset period when GAS testing was limited. Following resumption of routine testing practices the monthly percentage of urgent-care pharyngitis encounters for which rapid GAS testing was performed returned to levels ≥80% by July 2020 (Fig. 1). The average percentage of monthly pharyngitis encounters prescribed an antibiotic that also underwent GAS testing rose to 87.3% during this period. Conclusions: Limited PPE in our urgent care centers during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a mandated substantial decline in rapid GAS testing. As testing volume decreased, we noted a simultaneous relative increase of >30% in antibiotic prescribing for pharyngitis. These findings suggest that rapid streptococcal testing promotes appropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Antibiotics are frequently prescribed–and overprescribed–at hospital discharge, leading to adverse-events and patient harm. Our understanding of how to optimize prescribing at discharge is limited. Recently, we published the ROAD (Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge) Home Framework, which identified potential strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing at discharge across 3 tiers: Tier 1–Critical infrastructure, Tier 2–Broad inpatient interventions, Tier 3–Discharge-specific strategies. Here, we used the ROAD Home Framework to assess the association of stewardship strategies with antibiotic overuse at discharge and to describe pathways toward improved discharge prescribing. Methods: In fall 2019, we surveyed 39 Michigan hospitals on their antibiotic stewardship strategies. For patients hospitalized at participating hospitals July 1, 2017, through July 30, 2019, and treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and urinary tract infection (UTI), we assessed the association of reported strategies with days of antibiotic overuse at discharge. Days of antibiotic overuse at discharge were defined based on national guidelines and included unnecessary therapy, excess duration, and suboptimal fluoroquinolone use. We evaluated the association of stewardship strategies with days of discharge antibiotic overuse 2 ways: (1) all stewardship strategies were assumed to have equal weight, and (2) strategies weighted using the ROAD Home Framework with tier 3 (discharge-specific) strategies had the highest weight. Results: Overall, 39 hospitals with 20,444 patients (56.5% CAP; 43.5% UTI) were included. The survey response rate was 100% (39 of 39). Hospitals reported a median of 12 (IQR, 9–14) of 33 possible stewardship strategies (Fig. 1). On bivariable analyses, review of antibiotics prior to discharge was the only strategy consistently associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR, 0.543; 95% CI, 0.335–0.878). On multivariable analysis, weighting by ROAD Home tier predicted antibiotic overuse at discharge for both CAP and UTI. For diseases combined, having more weighted strategies was associated with lower antibiotic overuse at discharge (aIRR per weighted intervention, 0.957; 95% CI, 0.927–0.987). Discharge-specific stewardship strategies were associated with a 12.4% relative decrease in antibiotic overuse days at discharge. Based on these findings, 3 pathways emerged to improve antibiotic use at discharge (Fig. 2): inpatient-focused strategies, “doing it all,” and discharge-focused strategies. Conclusions: The more stewardship strategies reported, the lower a hospitals’ antibiotic overuse at discharge. However, different pathways to improve discharge antibiotic use exist. Thus, discharge stewardship strategies should be tailored. Specifically, hospitals with limited stewardship resources and infrastructure should consider implementing a discharge-specific strategy straightaway. In contrast, hospitals that already have substantial inpatient infrastructure may benefit from proactively incorporating discharge into their existing strategies.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Clinical pharmacists are a critical part of antibiotic stewardship. Stewardship often relies on relationships and persuasion, which may be affected by gender bias. Thus, we aimed to assess the association of sex with the acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations. Methods: Between May and October 2019, medicine pharmacists at single hospital reviewed patients on antibiotics and–when a discharge was anticipated–led an antibiotic discussion (or “timeout”) prior to discharge. To explore differences in antibiotic timeout effectiveness by gender, we assessed the association of pharmacist sex with suggestion and acceptance of antibiotic changes using logistic regression controlling for patient characteristics. We also assessed whether hospitalist sex was associated with or moderated the effect of pharmacist sex on acceptance of timeout recommendations. Results: Between May 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019, pharmacists conducted 295 timeouts (patient characteristics in Fig. 1). Overall, 54% of timeouts were conducted by 12 female pharmacists and the remaining 46% were conducted by 8 male pharmacists. Overall, 82 (29%) of 295 timeouts resulted in a pharmacist recommending an antibiotic change, and male pharmacists were more likely to recommend a change: 52 (38%) of 137 versus 30 (19%) 158 (P Conclusions: In this discharge antibiotic intervention, timeouts conducted by women were less likely to result in an antibiotic change than those conducted by men. The difference in effectiveness resulted both from female pharmacists being less likely to recommend a change and from hospitalists being less likely to accept recommendations from a female pharmacist. These findings suggest that gender bias may play a role acceptance of antibiotic stewardship recommendations, which could affect antibiotic use, pharmacist job satisfaction, and patient outcomes.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Billing data have been used in the outpatient setting to identify targets for antimicrobial stewardship. However, COVID-19 ICD-10 codes are new, and the validity of using COVID-19 ICD-10 codes to accurately identify COVID-19 encounters is unknown. We investigated COVID-19 ICD-10 utilization in our urgent care clinics during the pandemic and the impact of using different COVID-19 encounter definitions on antibiotic prescribing rates (APRs). Methods: We included all telemedicine and office visits at 2 academic urgent-care clinics from January 2020 to September 2021. We extracted ICD-10 encounter codes and testing data from the electronic medical record. We compared encounters for which COVID-19 ICD-10 codes were present with encounters for which SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) was performed within 5 days of and up to 2 days after the encounter (Fig. 1). We calculated the sensitivity of the use of COVID-19 ICD-10 codes against a positive NAAT. We calculated the APR as the proportion of encounters in which an antibacterial drug was prescribed. This quality improvement project was deemed non–human-subjects research by the Stanford Panel on Human Subjects in Medical Research.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Emerging evidence supports the use of billing data to identify stewardship targets in primary care. Standardizing an approach to antibiotic prescribing rate (APR) calculations could facilitate external benchmarking. Methods: Using methodology and an ICD-10 dictionary validated in urgent care clinics,1 we created an expanded ICD-10 dictionary to incorporate additional ICD-10 codes from primary care associated with antibiotic prescriptions (Fig. 1). We then compared antibiotic prescribing rates using the urgent care and expanded dictionaries. We included all primary care visits from 2019 to 2020 and extracted ICD-10 codes and antibiotic order data. Using the urgent care and expanded ICD-10 dictionary, we classified each encounter by prescribing tier based on whether antibiotics are almost always (tier 1), sometimes (tier 2), or almost never (tier 3) indicated. For encounters with ICD-10s in multiple tiers, we chose the lowest tier. For multiple ICD-10 codes within the same tier, we chose the first extracted ICD-10 code. We calculated antibiotic prescribing rates as the proportion of encounters associated with ≥ 1 antibacterial prescription. This quality improvement project was deemed non–human subjects research by the Stanford Panel on Human Subjects in Medical Research. Results: The urgent care dictionary has 1,400 ICD-10 codes. We added 1,439 ICD-10 codes derived from primary care encounters to create the expanded ICD-10 dictionary (8.5% tier 1, 9.1% tier 2, and 82.4% tier 3) (Fig. 1). We identified 177,531 encounters; 74% had ≥ 2 associated ICD-10 codes (Fig. 2). In total, 147,085 encounters (82.9%) were classified into a tier using the urgent care dictionary. An additional 22,039 encounters were classified with the expanded dictionary (Table 1). Most added encounters were tier 3 with low 0.7% APR (Tables 1 and 3). In total, 41,473 (28.2%) encounters were classified differently depending on the ICD-10 dictionary used, most commonly changing from tier 3 to tier 2 without an increase in overall tier 2 antibiotic prescribing rate (Tables 2 and 3). Overall antibiotic prescribing rates were similar when using either the urgent care or expanded ICD-10 dictionary (Table 2). Conclusions: The expanded ICD-10 dictionary allowed for classification of more encounters in primary care; however, it did not meaningfully change antibiotic prescribing rates. Antibiotic prescribing rates were likely diluted by classifying more encounters without identifying an associated increase in antibiotic prescribing. A more sophisticated classification system may help to accommodate the diversity and volume of ICD-10 codes used in primary care.

1. Stenehjem E, et al. Clin Infect Dis 2020;70:1781–1787.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We performed a survey of adult infectious diseases (ID) physicians to explore unintended consequences of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). ID physicians worried about disagreement with colleagues, provider autonomy, and remote recommendations. Non-ASP ID physicians expressed more concern regarding ASPs focus on costs, provider efficiency, and unintended consequences of ASP guidance.

We surveyed pediatric antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) site leaders within the Sharing Antimicrobial Reports for Pediatric Stewardship collaborative regarding discharge stewardship practices. Among 67 sites, 13 (19%) reported ASP review of discharge antimicrobial prescriptions. These findings highlight discharge stewardship as a potential opportunity for improvement during the hospital-to-home transition.

Time constraints have been suggested as a potential driver of antibiotic overuse for acute respiratory tract infections. In this cross-sectional analysis of national data from visits to offices and emergency departments, we identified no statistically significant association between antibiotic prescribing and the duration of visits for acute respiratory tract infections.

Antibiotics are not indicated for the treatment of bronchitis and bronchiolitis. Using a nationally representative database from 2006–2015, we found that antibiotics were prescribed in 58% of outpatient visits for bronchitis and bronchiolitis in children, serving as a possible baseline for the expanded HEDIS 2020 measure regarding antibiotic prescribing for bronchitis.